Read that some GOP delegates are having ugly confrontations with protesters, some of whom have turned the altercations violent. Sounds like some people have serious maturity problems to me.
Peaceful demonstrations are one thing; using physical force against delegates and police to express a political view is wrong and should be condemned. Likewise, delegates should conduct themselves professionally as well and report dangerous situations to law enforcement.
Anarchists and other radicals are behind the attacks on the delegates. Reminds me of Nazi tactics used to intimidate their opponents in 1930's Germany.
I do not recall reading about incidents like this at the Democratic National Convention. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Monday, August 30, 2004
Elian Gonzales Revisited
Does anyone recall this national disgrace?
The Elian Gonzales case was another example of the Clinton Justice Department taking shortcuts to resolve a situation to their satisfaction. In this case, they bypassed court rulings by attacking the house that the boy was staying at, entering it by force, and abducting the boy.
The end result was what I wanted, but the way that it was done was unconscionable.
The Justice Department has this nasty tendency to violate its own procedures and the law to get what it wants. Right or wrong, the court system had agreed with Elian's relatives in Florida that he should be allowed to stay. Rather than go for a court ruling, then-Attorney General Janet Reno ordered the boy removed by force.
This action was representative of the Clinton Justice Department's willingness to take shortcuts. It withheld thousands of pages of documents from Timothy McVeigh's attorneys in his death-penalty case, they blew the Ruby Ridge and Waco standoffs, which resulted in innocent people being burned alive or shot by federal officers. Using battering rams and weapons to force a family to give up a child?
I mention all of this because the family sued the government for use of excessive force (see above picture) and for violating court orders. The courts recently ruled that the government was within its rights to use force.
I do have a problem with this because legal procedures were short-circuited for political gain. Reno wanted a dramatic end to the case and so sent guys with guns in. This should have been the measure of last resort...if the family had disregarded an order from the court to give Elian up and they refused, then the use of force would have been more palatable.
Instead, they did a night raid, swooped in and took the screaming child.
I wanted the kid to go back to his dad, but I wanted the system to deal with it properly first. The courts were not allowed to do so due to political considerations. We ought to legislate that!
The end result was what I wanted, but the way that it was done was unconscionable.
The Justice Department has this nasty tendency to violate its own procedures and the law to get what it wants. Right or wrong, the court system had agreed with Elian's relatives in Florida that he should be allowed to stay. Rather than go for a court ruling, then-Attorney General Janet Reno ordered the boy removed by force.
This action was representative of the Clinton Justice Department's willingness to take shortcuts. It withheld thousands of pages of documents from Timothy McVeigh's attorneys in his death-penalty case, they blew the Ruby Ridge and Waco standoffs, which resulted in innocent people being burned alive or shot by federal officers. Using battering rams and weapons to force a family to give up a child?
I mention all of this because the family sued the government for use of excessive force (see above picture) and for violating court orders. The courts recently ruled that the government was within its rights to use force.
I do have a problem with this because legal procedures were short-circuited for political gain. Reno wanted a dramatic end to the case and so sent guys with guns in. This should have been the measure of last resort...if the family had disregarded an order from the court to give Elian up and they refused, then the use of force would have been more palatable.
Instead, they did a night raid, swooped in and took the screaming child.
I wanted the kid to go back to his dad, but I wanted the system to deal with it properly first. The courts were not allowed to do so due to political considerations. We ought to legislate that!
Oil Prices Drop After Iraq Oil Stops
OK, now the price of oil has fallen below $42.00 a barrel. This in spite of the fact that Iraq's southern oil terminals have been stopped by terrorists who attacked parts of Iraq's main southern pipeline. If we were to follow the usual pattern of behavior in the oil futures markets, it should have sent prices skyward once again. It didn't and the price continues to fall.
A million barrels of oil per day have been taken out of the equation, and the price drops?
What kind of crock is being pulled on us?
A million barrels of oil per day have been taken out of the equation, and the price drops?
What kind of crock is being pulled on us?
First Lady Under Fire
It’s been brought to my attention that First Lady Laura Bush is under fire from Democrats because she also refused to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads that criticize John Kerry’s military record.
CNN posted this on their web site about the comment:
In the interview she is asked, "Do you think these swift boat ads are unfair to John Kerry?"
"Not really," she replies. "There have been millions of terrible ads against my husband."
That’s what she’s being criticized for? Big deal!
Also from CNN’s web site: "Mrs. Bush's statement in support of the swift boat smear ads is more sad evidence that these attacks have been coordinated from the top down at the White House," Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said in a statement.
Kerry is still trying to have it both ways, with him pressuring Bush to condemn the Swift Boat “527” ads that are anti-Kerry, while refusing to condemn the (overwhelmingly) anti-Bush 527s.
Democrats should really vote for someone other than Kerry…his candidacy is approaching total meltdown stage.
CNN posted this on their web site about the comment:
In the interview she is asked, "Do you think these swift boat ads are unfair to John Kerry?"
"Not really," she replies. "There have been millions of terrible ads against my husband."
That’s what she’s being criticized for? Big deal!
Also from CNN’s web site: "Mrs. Bush's statement in support of the swift boat smear ads is more sad evidence that these attacks have been coordinated from the top down at the White House," Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said in a statement.
Kerry is still trying to have it both ways, with him pressuring Bush to condemn the Swift Boat “527” ads that are anti-Kerry, while refusing to condemn the (overwhelmingly) anti-Bush 527s.
Democrats should really vote for someone other than Kerry…his candidacy is approaching total meltdown stage.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Democrats & The GOP Convention
I think that it is interesting to note that when the Democrats had their convention, the GOP pulled all of its ads off the air and went silent for the duration of the Democratic convention. Only after Kerry had made his speech did the Republicans go back on the offensive.
You would think that the Democrats would show the same courtesy while the GOP convention is going on.
Nope. In an election year, the Democrats go right back to breaking unwritten rules of conduct in the hope of saving their sinking candidate. Kerry should have picked up a twelve point lead in the polls, but Bush got the bounce instead and the GOP got fired up, not the Democrats.
Here’s another prediction from me: At the upcoming debates, Kerry will agree to the debate rules but will proceed to break every one of them in short order, speaking out of turn and too long, while Bush will stay within the confines of the rules. It will be a mirror image of Gore sighing while Bush was talking at the 2000 debates.
You would think that the Democrats would show the same courtesy while the GOP convention is going on.
Nope. In an election year, the Democrats go right back to breaking unwritten rules of conduct in the hope of saving their sinking candidate. Kerry should have picked up a twelve point lead in the polls, but Bush got the bounce instead and the GOP got fired up, not the Democrats.
Here’s another prediction from me: At the upcoming debates, Kerry will agree to the debate rules but will proceed to break every one of them in short order, speaking out of turn and too long, while Bush will stay within the confines of the rules. It will be a mirror image of Gore sighing while Bush was talking at the 2000 debates.
Friday, August 27, 2004
9/11-Style Hit in Russia
The Russian Federation confirmed today that one of two Siberian airliners that crashed three minutes apart was blown out of the sky by terrorists. Russian FSB (the reformed KGB) confirmed that they found traces of explosives in the wreckage of one of the downed airliners. In addition, a Chechan web site linked to the separatist movement in Chechnya itself has claimed responsibility for the hijacking and destruction of both airliners.
So it was terrorism.
It should be noted that it’s the first coordinated terrorist attack on multiple civilian airliners since al-Qaeda struck New York City and Washington. Although there is no evidence that al-Qaeda itself was involved, al-Qaeda is believed to provide material and logistical support to the rebels, many of whom share Islamic ties with one another.
Though this terrorist act was against Russia and the elections that are due to be held any day in Chechnya (which the pro-Moscow candidates are expected to win), it points out weaknesses in airport security around the world and that many nations have a long ways to go before achieving mass-transit security.
It’s a very troubling situation.
So it was terrorism.
It should be noted that it’s the first coordinated terrorist attack on multiple civilian airliners since al-Qaeda struck New York City and Washington. Although there is no evidence that al-Qaeda itself was involved, al-Qaeda is believed to provide material and logistical support to the rebels, many of whom share Islamic ties with one another.
Though this terrorist act was against Russia and the elections that are due to be held any day in Chechnya (which the pro-Moscow candidates are expected to win), it points out weaknesses in airport security around the world and that many nations have a long ways to go before achieving mass-transit security.
It’s a very troubling situation.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Bush Trumps Kerry on 527s
President Bush asked Senator John McCain to assist in stopping all “527” ads today. As predicted, Bush has taken the lead in dealing with the problem, while the silence from the Kerry campaign is deafening.
While I was expecting Bush to take the lead on this, I wasn’t expecting it this soon and I didn’t expect him to draw in John McCain.
The fact of the matter is that Kerry needs the 527s to hurt Bush so he won’t denounce them.
Definition: "527 organization": According to the IRS, a Section 527 (§527) organization is an organization that is created to receive and disburse funds to influence or attempt to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office. Unlike Political Action Committees (PACs), they have no limit on what they can spend to attack or defend candidates. This is considered "soft money" that has been the subject of much debate in Congress in recent months.
The good news is that 527s are required by law to stop their campaigns 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election. However, this is being challenged in court right now as the 527s want to keep going. Other 527s are spending millions on ads that haven't been released yet.
While I was expecting Bush to take the lead on this, I wasn’t expecting it this soon and I didn’t expect him to draw in John McCain.
The fact of the matter is that Kerry needs the 527s to hurt Bush so he won’t denounce them.
Definition: "527 organization": According to the IRS, a Section 527 (§527) organization is an organization that is created to receive and disburse funds to influence or attempt to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office. Unlike Political Action Committees (PACs), they have no limit on what they can spend to attack or defend candidates. This is considered "soft money" that has been the subject of much debate in Congress in recent months.
The good news is that 527s are required by law to stop their campaigns 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election. However, this is being challenged in court right now as the 527s want to keep going. Other 527s are spending millions on ads that haven't been released yet.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
527s Again
This is getting utterly stupid now.
Not satisfied with Bush’s denunciation of all “527” ads, John Kerry is dispatching two of his Vietnam war buddies to President Bush’s ranch to pressure President Bush to go even further and condemn specific ads that have been effective in neutralizing Kerry’s military record.
Now wait just a damn minute!
Like I said before, Kerry won’t condemn the anti-Bush 527s, but if he’s crying about these ads and sending his friends to speak to his opponent about discrediting specific ads that are anti-Kerry, that’s not right! The door HAS to swing both ways!
My advice for Kerry would be to get up on the podium, denounce all 527s, call for a ban on those ads, and THEN approach President Bush with an offer to denounce specific anti-Bush ads in return for President Bush denouncing specific anti-Kerry ads.
That is a fair and equitable solution to this mess.
I am also a little sick of campaign staffers of the Bush and Kerry campaigns not being able to support whatever group that they want without the candidate being accused of supporting the same causes. I don’t think that Bush supports the Swift Boat Veterans; some of his supporters do. I don’t think Kerry is funding moveon.org or supporting their efforts, but some of his supporters do.
So what? Get over it and let these people practice their First Amendment right to association. Neither group mentioned has done anything illegal, so there should be no problem with a staffer belonging to groups that he/she supports.
Not satisfied with Bush’s denunciation of all “527” ads, John Kerry is dispatching two of his Vietnam war buddies to President Bush’s ranch to pressure President Bush to go even further and condemn specific ads that have been effective in neutralizing Kerry’s military record.
Now wait just a damn minute!
Like I said before, Kerry won’t condemn the anti-Bush 527s, but if he’s crying about these ads and sending his friends to speak to his opponent about discrediting specific ads that are anti-Kerry, that’s not right! The door HAS to swing both ways!
My advice for Kerry would be to get up on the podium, denounce all 527s, call for a ban on those ads, and THEN approach President Bush with an offer to denounce specific anti-Bush ads in return for President Bush denouncing specific anti-Kerry ads.
That is a fair and equitable solution to this mess.
I am also a little sick of campaign staffers of the Bush and Kerry campaigns not being able to support whatever group that they want without the candidate being accused of supporting the same causes. I don’t think that Bush supports the Swift Boat Veterans; some of his supporters do. I don’t think Kerry is funding moveon.org or supporting their efforts, but some of his supporters do.
So what? Get over it and let these people practice their First Amendment right to association. Neither group mentioned has done anything illegal, so there should be no problem with a staffer belonging to groups that he/she supports.
Russian Air Disaster--Terrorism?
The news coming out of the Russian Federation this morning is very troubling and it highlights the fact that other countries aren’t doing enough to secure their airports from terrorist takeovers or attacks.
Two commercial airliners took off from the same airport near Moscow several minutes apart and then went down three minutes apart several hours later. One of the airliners sent out a distress signal indicating that a hijacking was in progress. The Russian Emergency Ministry indicated that there were no survivors among the passengers or crew.
Russia has been fighting a bloody war in Chechnya to keep the breakaway republic as part of the Russian Federation and Chechen rebels have spread the war outside Chechnya’s borders, striking Moscow itself and several border provinces with terrorist attacks. Some of the Chechen groups are allied to al-Qaeda and get funding from Osama bin-Laden.
Those aircraft could have been rammed into the Kremlin in a 9/11-style attack or some other target.
Russian officials are eliminating other possibilities before coming out and saying that it was terrorism. Fuel problems and pilot error are being examined closely as well as the usual mechanical things that are part of crash investigations, but the hijacking distress call puts this tragedy into the “highly suspicious” category.
Terrorist attacks can happen in any country, anywhere in the world, and all governments are responsible for anti-terrorism measures to protect their citizens and foreign nationals who are on those aircraft and in those airports.
Two commercial airliners took off from the same airport near Moscow several minutes apart and then went down three minutes apart several hours later. One of the airliners sent out a distress signal indicating that a hijacking was in progress. The Russian Emergency Ministry indicated that there were no survivors among the passengers or crew.
Russia has been fighting a bloody war in Chechnya to keep the breakaway republic as part of the Russian Federation and Chechen rebels have spread the war outside Chechnya’s borders, striking Moscow itself and several border provinces with terrorist attacks. Some of the Chechen groups are allied to al-Qaeda and get funding from Osama bin-Laden.
Those aircraft could have been rammed into the Kremlin in a 9/11-style attack or some other target.
Russian officials are eliminating other possibilities before coming out and saying that it was terrorism. Fuel problems and pilot error are being examined closely as well as the usual mechanical things that are part of crash investigations, but the hijacking distress call puts this tragedy into the “highly suspicious” category.
Terrorist attacks can happen in any country, anywhere in the world, and all governments are responsible for anti-terrorism measures to protect their citizens and foreign nationals who are on those aircraft and in those airports.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
527 Fallout
As predicted, Kerry is taking full advantage of Bush’s call to ban “527” ads. I hate to say “I told you so,” so I’ll say “told ya” instead.
Kerry launched a blistering attack on Bush today, blaming Bush for the 527s that attacked his military record and have called his character into question.
It’s Kerry’s own fault for being so wishy-washy on his record and FLIP-FLOPPING faster than a fish would out of water.
The latest Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad has devastated Kerry’s support among veterans, especially Vietnam vets who were prisoners of war and had Kerry’s 1971 congressional testimony played back to them while they were prisoners of the North Vietnamese.
Kerry would be in much better shape if he hadn’t made his Vietnam service an issue. Regardless of whether he earned his medals or not, his past is coming back to bite him in the butt and he isn’t holding up too well. It’s starting to backfire and this entire issue has blown the Presidential campaign off track.
Speaking of going off track, whatever happened to that Kerry intern who fled to Africa? There’s more to that story than what came out on the news.
If Kerry wins, betcha that issue comes up again. The media will keep that story in its back pocket until Kerry is in power. They don't want to use that ace yet.
Kerry launched a blistering attack on Bush today, blaming Bush for the 527s that attacked his military record and have called his character into question.
It’s Kerry’s own fault for being so wishy-washy on his record and FLIP-FLOPPING faster than a fish would out of water.
The latest Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad has devastated Kerry’s support among veterans, especially Vietnam vets who were prisoners of war and had Kerry’s 1971 congressional testimony played back to them while they were prisoners of the North Vietnamese.
Kerry would be in much better shape if he hadn’t made his Vietnam service an issue. Regardless of whether he earned his medals or not, his past is coming back to bite him in the butt and he isn’t holding up too well. It’s starting to backfire and this entire issue has blown the Presidential campaign off track.
Speaking of going off track, whatever happened to that Kerry intern who fled to Africa? There’s more to that story than what came out on the news.
If Kerry wins, betcha that issue comes up again. The media will keep that story in its back pocket until Kerry is in power. They don't want to use that ace yet.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Death Ship on the Move
For the fourth year in a row, an abortion ship is prowling the waters off of Europe, performing abortions in international waters that are beyond the reach of law enforcement officials in various parts of pro-life Europe. Abortion is not universally accepted as some would lead the public to believe and this ship has been showing up in strong Catholic countries like Poland and Portugal. This is offensive to the extreme.
As a pro-life advocate, I hope that governments around the world ban such ships from entering their ports. “Women on Waves” operate the clinic and lay a course into international waters to perform abortions that may be illegal in the country that they are docked in. What a travesty!
Murdering the unborn on ships AND flaunting the laws of the nations that they are docked in. Sounds like a good case of persona non grata to me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3592718.stm
As a pro-life advocate, I hope that governments around the world ban such ships from entering their ports. “Women on Waves” operate the clinic and lay a course into international waters to perform abortions that may be illegal in the country that they are docked in. What a travesty!
Murdering the unborn on ships AND flaunting the laws of the nations that they are docked in. Sounds like a good case of persona non grata to me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3592718.stm
Bush Denounces "527" Ads
It’s nice that President Bush denounced all "527" ads today, including the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad, which has brazenly attacked Kerry’s military record.
Now let’s see if Kerry denounces moveon.org’s Bush/Hitler advertisements and “Fahrenheit 9/11”, which is nothing more than an anti-Bush ad in the movie theaters. Betcha he won’t. He now has an advantage over Bush due to Bush denouncing the anti-Kerry ads first.
Chances are that he will do the political thing and demand a stop to 527 ads, but won’t acknowledge the specific ads, even if he is questioned about it. That would fall into his usual pattern of statement and denial.
I doubt anything will change. This is positive publicity for both candidates, but things are going to get a lot worse before Election Day happens.
Now let’s see if Kerry denounces moveon.org’s Bush/Hitler advertisements and “Fahrenheit 9/11”, which is nothing more than an anti-Bush ad in the movie theaters. Betcha he won’t. He now has an advantage over Bush due to Bush denouncing the anti-Kerry ads first.
Chances are that he will do the political thing and demand a stop to 527 ads, but won’t acknowledge the specific ads, even if he is questioned about it. That would fall into his usual pattern of statement and denial.
I doubt anything will change. This is positive publicity for both candidates, but things are going to get a lot worse before Election Day happens.
Janet Jackson Blames White House For Her Problems
It’s been reported that Janet Jackson told Genre magazine that the Bush Administration used her “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl to distract the public from the Iraq War.
EXQUEEZE me, but if anyone distracted the public from the Iraq War, it was Janet Jackson with her publicity stunt, not the White House.
Who did the wardrobe, the exposed body part, the wardrobe tear-off idea itself and the ultimate responsibility belong to? Janet Jackson. Those “items” did not belong to a member of the government, Congress, the courts or the Bush Administration. Janet’s obviously joined Bruce Springstein’s “beat Bush” campaign and is using an error that was totally hers and Timberlake’s to bash Bush.
She ought to quit blaming others for her dismal sales on her last release, which coincided with the Super Bowl and directly with her actions there. For the record, I felt sorry for her and bought the stupid CD when it was released. I gave the CD away because I do not listen to her music.
Genre magazine managing editor Mike Slezak says the interview will be printed in the October edition. Big whoop.
EXQUEEZE me, but if anyone distracted the public from the Iraq War, it was Janet Jackson with her publicity stunt, not the White House.
Who did the wardrobe, the exposed body part, the wardrobe tear-off idea itself and the ultimate responsibility belong to? Janet Jackson. Those “items” did not belong to a member of the government, Congress, the courts or the Bush Administration. Janet’s obviously joined Bruce Springstein’s “beat Bush” campaign and is using an error that was totally hers and Timberlake’s to bash Bush.
She ought to quit blaming others for her dismal sales on her last release, which coincided with the Super Bowl and directly with her actions there. For the record, I felt sorry for her and bought the stupid CD when it was released. I gave the CD away because I do not listen to her music.
Genre magazine managing editor Mike Slezak says the interview will be printed in the October edition. Big whoop.
Friday, August 20, 2004
Oil, Investors, Russia & Iraq
What is the deal with oil investors, events in Iraq, and the cost of a barrel of oil? It is likely that the price of a barrel of oil will top $50 in by the weekend or early next week..
Consider this: U.S. forces continue to stomp all over the terrorist al-Sadr's henchmen in Najaf after the terrorists continued shelling Iraqi citizens and Iraqi and U.S. military positions. al-Sadr's acceptance of the Iraqi government terms may have been some kind of ruse, and the fighting continues. Civilians continue to die faster on the battlefields than the combatants.
Just a few hours ago it was announced that members of al-Sadr's militia broke into an oil company's compound in Basra and torched several buildings. The price of oil jumped immediately. Why?
Iraq's oil has been embargoed for years. The addition or subtraction of ANY Iraqi oil (whether it be 900,000 barrels a day, or 1.8 million barrels a day or 40,000 barrels a day) should LOWER the price of crude oil, not raise it.
If you ask me, this spike in oil prices is a conspiracy between the oil companies, the oil sheiks, and investors who all stand to profit from high oil prices. Think about it: the oil companies decide to cut back their estimates of how much oil is left in their oil fields. This new estimate allows investors to spike the price of crude oil. The Saudis and OPEC insist they need $28-$34 a barrel to make a decent profit and raise their production levels to keep the supply up and the demand down. But they won't turn away the extra billions of dollars that $48.75 a barrel brings in. Why should they?
In the meantime, the investors are keeping watch on every little thing that will allow them to raise the price even further. Attacks on oil terminals in Iraq; the possible (but HIGHLY unlikely) bankruptcy of a Russian oil firm; the "estimated" amounts of oil left in the oil fields, the amount of fuel coming in from Venezuela and other nations currently undergoing civil unrest that contribute to the oil supply, the phases of the moon and everything else that suggests that the sky is falling.
We do have to allow for unexpected growth in China and in the Third World that contributes to more gas being purchased and consumed by those nations, which leaves less for other nations that need the oil. However, even with that, the price of gas should be around $35 a barrel.
If anyone has any ideas for alternative fuels, now is the time to speak up!
Consider this: U.S. forces continue to stomp all over the terrorist al-Sadr's henchmen in Najaf after the terrorists continued shelling Iraqi citizens and Iraqi and U.S. military positions. al-Sadr's acceptance of the Iraqi government terms may have been some kind of ruse, and the fighting continues. Civilians continue to die faster on the battlefields than the combatants.
Just a few hours ago it was announced that members of al-Sadr's militia broke into an oil company's compound in Basra and torched several buildings. The price of oil jumped immediately. Why?
Iraq's oil has been embargoed for years. The addition or subtraction of ANY Iraqi oil (whether it be 900,000 barrels a day, or 1.8 million barrels a day or 40,000 barrels a day) should LOWER the price of crude oil, not raise it.
If you ask me, this spike in oil prices is a conspiracy between the oil companies, the oil sheiks, and investors who all stand to profit from high oil prices. Think about it: the oil companies decide to cut back their estimates of how much oil is left in their oil fields. This new estimate allows investors to spike the price of crude oil. The Saudis and OPEC insist they need $28-$34 a barrel to make a decent profit and raise their production levels to keep the supply up and the demand down. But they won't turn away the extra billions of dollars that $48.75 a barrel brings in. Why should they?
In the meantime, the investors are keeping watch on every little thing that will allow them to raise the price even further. Attacks on oil terminals in Iraq; the possible (but HIGHLY unlikely) bankruptcy of a Russian oil firm; the "estimated" amounts of oil left in the oil fields, the amount of fuel coming in from Venezuela and other nations currently undergoing civil unrest that contribute to the oil supply, the phases of the moon and everything else that suggests that the sky is falling.
We do have to allow for unexpected growth in China and in the Third World that contributes to more gas being purchased and consumed by those nations, which leaves less for other nations that need the oil. However, even with that, the price of gas should be around $35 a barrel.
If anyone has any ideas for alternative fuels, now is the time to speak up!
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Najaf's Imam Ali Mosque: Flashpoint
Fact: Muqtada al-Sadr is a renegade Iraqi terrorist leader.
Let’s not mince words. He’s hiding behind his religion to oppose the government of Iraq. His troops are firing indiscriminately from the mosque that they’ve holed up in and are killing more Iraqi civilians than they are Iraqi or American/coalition troops who are there to keep his murderous henchmen bottled up. This turns his statement that he's a freedom fighter into a lie. He's fighting freedom, that's what he's doing.
I hope the Iraqi courts get their hands on him.
His occupation of the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf is a political move designed to raise Shiite hatred of the United States to a new level and to discredit the outgoing Iraqi provisional government. It is al-Sadr that has endangered one of Islam’s holiest sites, not the United States or the Iraqi government.
al-Sadr is called a cleric, but he’s actually a terrorist who happens to be a cleric. Shiite Islam would do well to get rid of him; his war crimes speak for themselves.
Let’s not mince words. He’s hiding behind his religion to oppose the government of Iraq. His troops are firing indiscriminately from the mosque that they’ve holed up in and are killing more Iraqi civilians than they are Iraqi or American/coalition troops who are there to keep his murderous henchmen bottled up. This turns his statement that he's a freedom fighter into a lie. He's fighting freedom, that's what he's doing.
I hope the Iraqi courts get their hands on him.
His occupation of the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf is a political move designed to raise Shiite hatred of the United States to a new level and to discredit the outgoing Iraqi provisional government. It is al-Sadr that has endangered one of Islam’s holiest sites, not the United States or the Iraqi government.
al-Sadr is called a cleric, but he’s actually a terrorist who happens to be a cleric. Shiite Islam would do well to get rid of him; his war crimes speak for themselves.
NPR Weighs in on Crusader vs. Jihad
For those who are interested, my dialogue on crusader vs. jihad was online two days before the National Public Radio report aired. NPR’s report centered on the history of the Crusades themselves and the historical backdrop behind the words. I thought it did a great job of doing the historical perspective.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Terrorists Detained in Britain--Orange Alert Justified
It appears that the recent Orange terror alert in parts of New York and New Jersey were well-founded, much to the distress of political hacks who were hoping that the Bush Administration was using the terror threat to divert attention from domestic politics in an election year.
Britain has detained al-Qaeda members who were in possession of blueprints of the New York Stock Exchange, the International Monetary Fund headquarters (also in New York), the Prudential Building in Newark, New Jersey, and the Citigroup Center skyscraper in New York City, which is the fifth tallest building in New York (915 feet high).
Well, well, well. The system appears to be working.
The eight terror suspects are being held in London and will be charged with violating the British Terror Act.
Too bad, hacks.
Britain has detained al-Qaeda members who were in possession of blueprints of the New York Stock Exchange, the International Monetary Fund headquarters (also in New York), the Prudential Building in Newark, New Jersey, and the Citigroup Center skyscraper in New York City, which is the fifth tallest building in New York (915 feet high).
Well, well, well. The system appears to be working.
The eight terror suspects are being held in London and will be charged with violating the British Terror Act.
Too bad, hacks.
Military Draft in 2005?
I think a military draft has become inevitable.
It has become painfully clear that we do not have enough troops to do the job that is needed around the world. We’ve already sent the reserves into combat and National Guard units have been stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan for a year or more. Some are already going back over for a second tour of duty.
Eventually these troops will have to be replaced, and I don’t see a line outside the Army recruiter’s office these days. I think the writing is on the wall.
Another successful (and large-scale) terrorist attack on the United States could be the trigger needed to start the process. If we are hit in October as the government has hinted at, I think by mid-2005 we will see the first draft notices. 18-21 year olds will be at risk first.
I hope I’m wrong.
It has become painfully clear that we do not have enough troops to do the job that is needed around the world. We’ve already sent the reserves into combat and National Guard units have been stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan for a year or more. Some are already going back over for a second tour of duty.
Eventually these troops will have to be replaced, and I don’t see a line outside the Army recruiter’s office these days. I think the writing is on the wall.
Another successful (and large-scale) terrorist attack on the United States could be the trigger needed to start the process. If we are hit in October as the government has hinted at, I think by mid-2005 we will see the first draft notices. 18-21 year olds will be at risk first.
I hope I’m wrong.
Whistleblower's Family Threatened
The soldier who blew the whistle on the Abu Gharib prison abuse scandal remains a controversial figure and so, apparently, is his family.
Sgt. Joseph Darby brought the scandal to the attention of his superiors as he was required to do under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as U.S. Army regulations with regards to treatment of prisoners.
Astonishingly, some in the military and some civilians view Darby as a traitor.
Sgt. Darby is in protective military custody, and now his family has been taken into protective custody as well after being threatened by people who they thought were their friends and neighbors.
Members of the 372nd Military Police Company were seen in now-infamous photographs humiliating naked Iraqi men and forcing them into homosexual acts. NOTE: Not all in the 372nd were involved. That has to be made clear.
So are these people upset that their family members or friends have been exposed as war criminals? Are they mad that their precious code of silence was broken? Did they enjoy the photos? What are they mad about?
Darby talked, that’s what the problem is.
Too bad. Hopefully Darby and his family will come out of this all right. He did what his conscience told him to do and no one should fault him for that. He should be credited with upholding the honor of the United States Army when others in his unit chose to abandon it. For others to defend the actions of the accused is indefensible.
To blame his family for his choice is utterly moronic and brainless.
Do a web search on Sgt. Joseph Darby to view all the stories.
Sgt. Joseph Darby brought the scandal to the attention of his superiors as he was required to do under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as U.S. Army regulations with regards to treatment of prisoners.
Astonishingly, some in the military and some civilians view Darby as a traitor.
Sgt. Darby is in protective military custody, and now his family has been taken into protective custody as well after being threatened by people who they thought were their friends and neighbors.
Members of the 372nd Military Police Company were seen in now-infamous photographs humiliating naked Iraqi men and forcing them into homosexual acts. NOTE: Not all in the 372nd were involved. That has to be made clear.
So are these people upset that their family members or friends have been exposed as war criminals? Are they mad that their precious code of silence was broken? Did they enjoy the photos? What are they mad about?
Darby talked, that’s what the problem is.
Too bad. Hopefully Darby and his family will come out of this all right. He did what his conscience told him to do and no one should fault him for that. He should be credited with upholding the honor of the United States Army when others in his unit chose to abandon it. For others to defend the actions of the accused is indefensible.
To blame his family for his choice is utterly moronic and brainless.
Do a web search on Sgt. Joseph Darby to view all the stories.
Monday, August 16, 2004
It's the Oil, Stupid!!
Is anyone pleased with the price of a gallon of gas these days?
The oil companies and oil sheiks are. So's al-Qaeda; anything to screw us meets with their approval. Screw them.
Now is the time to pour tons of money into finding an alternative to Arab oil. And I don't mean Texas oil or Alaskan oil. We need to be free and clear of oil in the next ten to fifteen years or so. Then we can tell the cartels what to go and do with their oil!
It is clear that we won't get any relief from "W" as he is heavily invested in the oil industry. We'll have to wait until the next President (after Bush's second term in office) to pour the needed billions into alternative fuel research.
So much of our foreign policy is geared toward securing and maintaining our oil supplies. When we no longer have need of it, how will our foreign policy change? Hopefully whatever it turns into, it will be for the betterment of all humankind.
The oil companies and oil sheiks are. So's al-Qaeda; anything to screw us meets with their approval. Screw them.
Now is the time to pour tons of money into finding an alternative to Arab oil. And I don't mean Texas oil or Alaskan oil. We need to be free and clear of oil in the next ten to fifteen years or so. Then we can tell the cartels what to go and do with their oil!
It is clear that we won't get any relief from "W" as he is heavily invested in the oil industry. We'll have to wait until the next President (after Bush's second term in office) to pour the needed billions into alternative fuel research.
So much of our foreign policy is geared toward securing and maintaining our oil supplies. When we no longer have need of it, how will our foreign policy change? Hopefully whatever it turns into, it will be for the betterment of all humankind.
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Jihad vs. Crusade
When someone from the Middle East hears a Christian talking about a "crusade" against something, the Middle Easterner gets all offended because he or she thinks it is about destroying Islam. That's incorrect.
When someone from the West hears the word "jihad" thrown around by al-Qaeda or Yasser Arafat, the Westerner thinks "terrorism" and "anti-Christian" and "9/11." The Afghans declared jihad against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979; Iran and Iraq declared jihad on one another after Saddam's troops invaded Iran; Iran also declared jihad on the United States; the Palestinians declared jihad against Israel (and so have all of Israel's neighbors at one point or another), and Osama bin-Laden declared jihad on the United States. This interpretation is not entirely correct either.
Here are some dictionary terms:
Crusade--1) Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. 2) A holy war undertaken with papal sanction. 3) A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse.
Jihad--1) A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels. 2) Crusade or struggle for a cause against an abuse.
Muslims: When a Christian talks about launching a crusade against injustice, it's definition #3.
Christians: When a Muslim is talking about jihad against poverty, it's actions taken to combat the causes of poverty and a great deal of prayer.
Now, when either term is used against another country or group of people, then people have good reason to be nervous. Both sides would be trying to destroy one another. If Bush had spoken of a Crusade against the Iraqi people, I'm sure we would have had entire Arab armies from neighboring Arab countries fighting alongside the Republican Guard and the Fedayeen Saddam against the U.S. Army and Marines. The portion of the Navy in the Persian Gulf would find air attacks coming in from every direction and the Air Force would have to fly their missions in from halfway around the world.
Likewise, if any Arab nations had declared jihad against the United States on 9/11 or shortly thereafter, we would OWN those countries. There would be no talk of rebuilding or friendship. Libya, Syria and Saudi Arabia would belong to us now.
See how nasty words can be?
If I launch a holy war against poverty, which definition would fit better? Crusade or jihad? In this case, it's the same definition, so both words would be equally valid.
I wish people wouldn't freak out when someone uses the term that they're more uncomfortable with.
When someone from the West hears the word "jihad" thrown around by al-Qaeda or Yasser Arafat, the Westerner thinks "terrorism" and "anti-Christian" and "9/11." The Afghans declared jihad against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979; Iran and Iraq declared jihad on one another after Saddam's troops invaded Iran; Iran also declared jihad on the United States; the Palestinians declared jihad against Israel (and so have all of Israel's neighbors at one point or another), and Osama bin-Laden declared jihad on the United States. This interpretation is not entirely correct either.
Here are some dictionary terms:
Crusade--1) Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. 2) A holy war undertaken with papal sanction. 3) A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse.
Jihad--1) A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels. 2) Crusade or struggle for a cause against an abuse.
Muslims: When a Christian talks about launching a crusade against injustice, it's definition #3.
Christians: When a Muslim is talking about jihad against poverty, it's actions taken to combat the causes of poverty and a great deal of prayer.
Now, when either term is used against another country or group of people, then people have good reason to be nervous. Both sides would be trying to destroy one another. If Bush had spoken of a Crusade against the Iraqi people, I'm sure we would have had entire Arab armies from neighboring Arab countries fighting alongside the Republican Guard and the Fedayeen Saddam against the U.S. Army and Marines. The portion of the Navy in the Persian Gulf would find air attacks coming in from every direction and the Air Force would have to fly their missions in from halfway around the world.
Likewise, if any Arab nations had declared jihad against the United States on 9/11 or shortly thereafter, we would OWN those countries. There would be no talk of rebuilding or friendship. Libya, Syria and Saudi Arabia would belong to us now.
See how nasty words can be?
If I launch a holy war against poverty, which definition would fit better? Crusade or jihad? In this case, it's the same definition, so both words would be equally valid.
I wish people wouldn't freak out when someone uses the term that they're more uncomfortable with.
Friday, August 13, 2004
Better Nader than Kerry!
I think Democrats who are voting for Kerry should consider voting for Nader instead.
You know where Nader stands on things. He doesn’t flip-flop like Kerry does. Kerry just won’t take a stand, and when he does he reverses positions on where he stands. Liberal Democrats opposed to the Iraq War don’t know what Kerry’s going to say next either. The flip-flops are getting worse as the election gets closer. A few weeks ago, he was telling a group of liberal Democrats that he was THE anti-war candidate. A few days later he was pro-Iraq War for another audience. "Sensitive war on terror" ring a bell? Does he comprehend the fact that the media reports everything he says in public?
Bush definitely knows where he stands. He says what he’s going to do, and then he does it. Love him or hate him, he’ll tell you straight-up where he stands on every issue.
Picked up on Kerry’s most common refrain yet? “I started thinking about tax cuts in the trenches of Vietnam.” “I started thinking about gay rights while I was in Vietnam.” “I started thinking about civil rights when I was shooting at the North Vietnamese Army.” His attempting to tie his war record into his stands on the issues is ridiculous! It really started at his acceptance speech when he would make a profound statement (in his own mind) about foreign policy, then tie it in to domestic issues, which killed his original statement. He must have done that twenty-five times in fifty-five minutes. Unbelievable!
People used to say “anyone but Bush” for President. Some of those people are now saying “anyone but Kerry” now. The world turns, does it not?
You know where Nader stands on things. He doesn’t flip-flop like Kerry does. Kerry just won’t take a stand, and when he does he reverses positions on where he stands. Liberal Democrats opposed to the Iraq War don’t know what Kerry’s going to say next either. The flip-flops are getting worse as the election gets closer. A few weeks ago, he was telling a group of liberal Democrats that he was THE anti-war candidate. A few days later he was pro-Iraq War for another audience. "Sensitive war on terror" ring a bell? Does he comprehend the fact that the media reports everything he says in public?
Bush definitely knows where he stands. He says what he’s going to do, and then he does it. Love him or hate him, he’ll tell you straight-up where he stands on every issue.
Picked up on Kerry’s most common refrain yet? “I started thinking about tax cuts in the trenches of Vietnam.” “I started thinking about gay rights while I was in Vietnam.” “I started thinking about civil rights when I was shooting at the North Vietnamese Army.” His attempting to tie his war record into his stands on the issues is ridiculous! It really started at his acceptance speech when he would make a profound statement (in his own mind) about foreign policy, then tie it in to domestic issues, which killed his original statement. He must have done that twenty-five times in fifty-five minutes. Unbelievable!
People used to say “anyone but Bush” for President. Some of those people are now saying “anyone but Kerry” now. The world turns, does it not?
Chicanery in New Jersey Governor's Office
New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevey startled the political world yesterday when he resigned from his office over a gay affair that he had after being married.
So what? I am not interested in his sordid affairs.
However, there is something rotten in the state of New Jersey. Under the New Jersey constitution, if a vacancy occurs in the Governor’s office sixty days or more before a general election, then an election is to be held on said general election.
Governor McGreevey announced he didn’t want to weaken the governorship with the scandal and felt that his ability to govern had diminished. If this was true, then his resignation should have gone into effect at noon today. It didn’t happen. He announced that his resignation will be effective November 15th. So New Jersey is left with a lame-duck governor whose ability to govern will be diminished even further.
Here’s my problem: he announced his resignation eighty-two days before the general election on November 2nd. This means that the New Jersey constitutional requirement is fulfilled and an election can happen on November 2nd. But instead of giving the people the choice on November 2nd of selecting a new Governor, McGreevey is clinging to power to guarantee that the people have to wait until the following November to elect a new Governor, who could very possibly be a Republican. The New Jersey constitution states that if the vacancy occurs WITHIN sixty days of a general election, then the next one in line of succession will become acting Governor until the following general election, which is in November 2005.
In this case, it’s a liberal Democrat who is next in line. There may be more politics at play, however. There is a very popular Republican in the state legislature who has signaled his intention to run for the position. He may well be the next elected Governor of New Jersey, but the Democrats don’t want a heavy Republican turnout as it may shift the balance of the Presidential election in George Bush’s favor. New Jersey has been very independent on whom they vote for and Kerry holds a slim lead right now over Bush.
McGreevey really ought to step down now so that the people can decide who their next Governor will be, not be stuck with an unelected acting Governor. Three weeks from now it will be too late for the vote to happen, so the Republicans are probably thinking about suing to allow the election on November 2nd.
Strange story.
So what? I am not interested in his sordid affairs.
However, there is something rotten in the state of New Jersey. Under the New Jersey constitution, if a vacancy occurs in the Governor’s office sixty days or more before a general election, then an election is to be held on said general election.
Governor McGreevey announced he didn’t want to weaken the governorship with the scandal and felt that his ability to govern had diminished. If this was true, then his resignation should have gone into effect at noon today. It didn’t happen. He announced that his resignation will be effective November 15th. So New Jersey is left with a lame-duck governor whose ability to govern will be diminished even further.
Here’s my problem: he announced his resignation eighty-two days before the general election on November 2nd. This means that the New Jersey constitutional requirement is fulfilled and an election can happen on November 2nd. But instead of giving the people the choice on November 2nd of selecting a new Governor, McGreevey is clinging to power to guarantee that the people have to wait until the following November to elect a new Governor, who could very possibly be a Republican. The New Jersey constitution states that if the vacancy occurs WITHIN sixty days of a general election, then the next one in line of succession will become acting Governor until the following general election, which is in November 2005.
In this case, it’s a liberal Democrat who is next in line. There may be more politics at play, however. There is a very popular Republican in the state legislature who has signaled his intention to run for the position. He may well be the next elected Governor of New Jersey, but the Democrats don’t want a heavy Republican turnout as it may shift the balance of the Presidential election in George Bush’s favor. New Jersey has been very independent on whom they vote for and Kerry holds a slim lead right now over Bush.
McGreevey really ought to step down now so that the people can decide who their next Governor will be, not be stuck with an unelected acting Governor. Three weeks from now it will be too late for the vote to happen, so the Republicans are probably thinking about suing to allow the election on November 2nd.
Strange story.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Rule of Law Returns to San Francisco
Finally!
The California Supreme Court ruled that the mayor of San Francisco overstepped his authority when he illegally issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of state law.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you don't change laws by disobeying them, and that's especially true of politicians on all levels of government! If you are a politician, you use your position to influence legislation for or against an issue, not do what you want in defiance of the law. The mayor's actions weakened the entire system and the California Supreme Court's unanimous decision strengthened and reinforced it.
I would have been cheering if Governor Schwarzenegger had ordered State Police to arrest the mayor for defying the law. This ruling is not about gay rights, it is about a politician who took an issue and illegally used his authority to effect change on the entire system after it had already been decided by state law. California law currently states that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. The mayor knew that, and he broke the law. What can happen to politicians who break the law?
The gay rights issue itself (in California) will be decided in about a year when brand-new lawsuits challenging the state law finally reach the California Supreme Court.
The mayor should still be charged with abuse of power, corruption and failure to uphold the California Constitution as he swore to at his inauguration. His attempt to force the system to change has failed. The California Supreme Court may agree with the mayor's goal in about a year, but at least it will be a LEGAL change, not a hokey act of defiance by a bombastic politician.
For the record, I think California's current law is correct. Marriage is between a man and a woman; civil unions are for everyone else.
The California Supreme Court ruled that the mayor of San Francisco overstepped his authority when he illegally issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of state law.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you don't change laws by disobeying them, and that's especially true of politicians on all levels of government! If you are a politician, you use your position to influence legislation for or against an issue, not do what you want in defiance of the law. The mayor's actions weakened the entire system and the California Supreme Court's unanimous decision strengthened and reinforced it.
I would have been cheering if Governor Schwarzenegger had ordered State Police to arrest the mayor for defying the law. This ruling is not about gay rights, it is about a politician who took an issue and illegally used his authority to effect change on the entire system after it had already been decided by state law. California law currently states that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. The mayor knew that, and he broke the law. What can happen to politicians who break the law?
The gay rights issue itself (in California) will be decided in about a year when brand-new lawsuits challenging the state law finally reach the California Supreme Court.
The mayor should still be charged with abuse of power, corruption and failure to uphold the California Constitution as he swore to at his inauguration. His attempt to force the system to change has failed. The California Supreme Court may agree with the mayor's goal in about a year, but at least it will be a LEGAL change, not a hokey act of defiance by a bombastic politician.
For the record, I think California's current law is correct. Marriage is between a man and a woman; civil unions are for everyone else.
Plan To Curtail Guard Towers Opposed--Mining Journal
There is a debate going on in Michigan about cutting back on guards in guard towers in the Michigan prison system in favor of electronic surveillance cameras. This is a bad idea.
Maximum security prisoners don't respect cameras. They respect the snipers. When a "lifer" has nothing left to lose but his life, how much effect will a camera have? Deterrence is the only thing that keeps maximum security prisons under control. Here is part of a story from a recent issue of the Daily Mining Gazette:
In July, a warning shot from a guard in the tower of the Carson City Correctional Facility was the only thing that gained control in a melee involving four inmates and correctional officers.
That's a circumstance that correctional officers at the Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility say they face periodically. Carson City houses levels I, II and IV prisoners, and the correctional officers at the maximum security prison in Baraga must deal with Level V offenders, or as one called it, "the worst of the worst."
Maximum security prisoners don't respect cameras. They respect the snipers. When a "lifer" has nothing left to lose but his life, how much effect will a camera have? Deterrence is the only thing that keeps maximum security prisons under control. Here is part of a story from a recent issue of the Daily Mining Gazette:
In July, a warning shot from a guard in the tower of the Carson City Correctional Facility was the only thing that gained control in a melee involving four inmates and correctional officers.
That's a circumstance that correctional officers at the Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility say they face periodically. Carson City houses levels I, II and IV prisoners, and the correctional officers at the maximum security prison in Baraga must deal with Level V offenders, or as one called it, "the worst of the worst."
These are not nice people in Level V prisons. They are convicted murderers, rapists, arsonists, drug dealers, bank robbers, habitual offenders and the worst parts of the human condition. They are a threat to society and belong where they are. This means that the prison guards have to exercise total control over the prisons. If a warning shot can stop a killer from murdering or beating a prison guard or another prisoner, then it doesn't need to be changed.
If they wish to add cameras to the guard towers in addition to keeping the snipers in place, I have no issue with it. But replacing snipers (or gunners if they so wish to be called) with cameras OR reducing the number of guards up there in favor of electronics is a REAL bad idea.
Cut coffee or weight rooms out of maximum security prisons, not the guards in the guard towers. If the prisoners can seize control of a prison, they can get out.
I can't imagine the chaos that would result if Alger Maximum Security Prison near Munising, MI, emptied or Marquette Max in Marquette, MI, experienced a mass breakout. The same thing goes for Baraga Max near Baraga, MI. The local police departments would be outnumbered and the residents of those small Upper Peninsula towns would begin to be murdered in their homes, front yards, or in the street. The crime wave would be unprecedented.
Replacing a sniper with a camera? I don't think so! Those towers need to be manned 24/7. See the link below or do a Google search on "Michigan guard towers prison."
Addendum 8/13/04: I think there should be gun turrets at the end of every hallway in Level V prisons as well as the gun towers.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
EMP Weapons: America's Achilles Heel
A study was recently released that suggests that the U.S. is extremely vulnerable to the effects of an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP). It has been long feared that a nuclear weapon exploding high above the United States could black out the entire country and send the U.S. back into the Stone Age for years.
For this post, here is the definition of an electromagnetic pulse from the EMP Commission:
In addition to the ability to kill thousands of people instantly, nuclear weapons have another, equally crippling capability to destroy or disrupt power grids, electronic systems, and communications in an entire country, while sparing the lives of its people--at least initially.
Specifically, a nuclear bomb detonated above the earth's atmosphere would create a split-second electromagnetic pulse, similar to an extremely high-energy radio wave.
For example, a single nuclear weapon detonated at an altitude of 500 kilometers could produce an EMP that would blanket the entire continental United States, potentially damaging or destroying military forces and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure essential to modern society.
EMP can also be created artificially. Some police departments were testing a new EMP device that causes a car’s alternator to shut down if it is hit by a focused pulse. Police have hopes that the EMP field will enable them to stop pursuits that often turn into high-speed chases that lead to fatalities. Unfortunately, it destroys the alternator and could cause someone with a battery-powered pacemaker to die as well as it would destroy the battery powering the pacemaker. See the hit movie “The Core” for an illustration of what happens when a pulse hits people with pacemakers.
Back to the subject at hand, some nuclear weapons are designed to produce huge electromagnetic pulses. Others have EMP effects that are not as severe.
It would be a good idea to expand EMP shielding to include critical military systems as well as critical areas in the civilian sector as well. Here’s the commission’s recommendations:
Develop a clear policy about how it will respond to an EMP attack;
Assess which assets of the nation's power grid and telecommunications infrastructure are most critical to the overall system;
Harden those critical assets against EMP;
Retrofit at least a portion of U.S. military assets to protect against EMP;
Engineer EMP protections into a greater percentage of future military capabilities; and
Deploy an effective ballistic missile defense.
The EMP Commissionpoints out that this is an old threat, but now we are dealing with terrorists who are crazy enough to use weapons like this against us.
An ounce of prevention....you get the idea. If they turn the United States into a sub-Third World country, will our American civilization survive long enough to rebuild?
The link below leads to the full article. It's pretty scary.
(http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg1784.cfm)
Kerry, Vietnam & Iraq
Will the real John Kerry please stand up?
The ghost of Vietnam will be unleashed again with the anti-Kerry book "Unfit for Command" due to be released on Tuesday.
Kerry's record in Vietnam will be under extremely heavy fire next week from Vietnam veterans who are hotly disputing Kerry's assertions about his military record in Vietnam.
So we have the anti-Bush films (NOT DOCUMENTARIES) "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "The Manchurian Candidate" and the anti-Kerry "Unfit for Command" book.
This Presidential race sucks.
The ghost of Vietnam will be unleashed again with the anti-Kerry book "Unfit for Command" due to be released on Tuesday.
Kerry's record in Vietnam will be under extremely heavy fire next week from Vietnam veterans who are hotly disputing Kerry's assertions about his military record in Vietnam.
So we have the anti-Bush films (NOT DOCUMENTARIES) "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "The Manchurian Candidate" and the anti-Kerry "Unfit for Command" book.
This Presidential race sucks.
Monday, August 09, 2004
U.S. Elections To Be Observed By International Group
It was announced by the State Department that international observers will be coming in to monitor the Presidential election in November.
Here’s the background:
Florida 2000: A constitutional crisis began when the electoral system in the state of Florida broke down and the winner was unclear. Court challenges to the election began and the issue was finally decided the following month in the United States Supreme Court. George W. Bush was declared the winner (even though the media recount confirmed the results of Gore’s court-ordered recount) and the embarrassment of the election ended.
Fast forward to last month (July 2004): Thirteen Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives petitioned the United Nations to ask for international monitors to make sure that there will be no civil rights issues in the November 2004 election. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan rejected the appeal, saying that the Bush Administration had to make the request.
The Democratic delegation then asked Secretary of State Colin Powell and he took it under advisement. Powell asked the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to send in observers.
Now, this is not the first time the OSCE has sent observers here: they monitored the midterm 2002 elections and the California gubernatorial recall election. Over the last ten years, they’ve sent 10,000 observers to monitor 150 elections in 30 countries around the world, including Europe, the United States and other industrialized nations.
They monitored elections recently in Spain and in Northern Ireland.
This is nothing to get worked up about. With any amount of luck, they’ll be able to go home to their native countries and tell their countrymen that our elections are a model for the rest of the world to follow.
Here’s the background:
Florida 2000: A constitutional crisis began when the electoral system in the state of Florida broke down and the winner was unclear. Court challenges to the election began and the issue was finally decided the following month in the United States Supreme Court. George W. Bush was declared the winner (even though the media recount confirmed the results of Gore’s court-ordered recount) and the embarrassment of the election ended.
Fast forward to last month (July 2004): Thirteen Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives petitioned the United Nations to ask for international monitors to make sure that there will be no civil rights issues in the November 2004 election. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan rejected the appeal, saying that the Bush Administration had to make the request.
The Democratic delegation then asked Secretary of State Colin Powell and he took it under advisement. Powell asked the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to send in observers.
Now, this is not the first time the OSCE has sent observers here: they monitored the midterm 2002 elections and the California gubernatorial recall election. Over the last ten years, they’ve sent 10,000 observers to monitor 150 elections in 30 countries around the world, including Europe, the United States and other industrialized nations.
They monitored elections recently in Spain and in Northern Ireland.
This is nothing to get worked up about. With any amount of luck, they’ll be able to go home to their native countries and tell their countrymen that our elections are a model for the rest of the world to follow.
9/11 Justice Un-delivered
There is a report in the Associated Press being circulated in the papers and on cnn.com, foxnews.com and other web sites that 9/11 prosecutors are angry with the Justice Department for not sharing evidence needed to prosecute suspected terrorists.
Several jihaddists have gotten off because the government did not tie them to al-Qaeda, nor were they shown on video engaging in planning for terrorist strikes on buildings and other targets around the country. The evidence is officially classified information and so the prosecutor’s hands were tied; it could not be shown to jurors.
This weakened the government’s position and caused some of the prosecutions to collapse.
Why do we even bother to prosecute these people if the prosecution doesn’t have the evidence that they need?
The Justice Department needs to be doing a whole lot better.
Several jihaddists have gotten off because the government did not tie them to al-Qaeda, nor were they shown on video engaging in planning for terrorist strikes on buildings and other targets around the country. The evidence is officially classified information and so the prosecutor’s hands were tied; it could not be shown to jurors.
This weakened the government’s position and caused some of the prosecutions to collapse.
Why do we even bother to prosecute these people if the prosecution doesn’t have the evidence that they need?
The Justice Department needs to be doing a whole lot better.
Sunday, August 08, 2004
9/11 Politics
There has been a lot of noise over the raising of the terror alert to Orange last week.
Critics are charging that it shouldn't have been raised because part of the information is 3-4 years old. Some people are ignoring the fact that there is direct evidence that 9/11 was at least four years in the making.
If that's true, then what is all this noise about? If we had discovered plans (on September 10th) that dated back to 1996 that laid out the attack on the World Trade Center, complete with plans to ram hijacked airliners into both towers, would we have done nothing? WHOOPS!! That's exactly what happened last time!
This is election-year politics, AGAIN!
Why do idiot politicians put election year POLITICS ahead of preventing the terrorists from carrying out attacks on specific targets?
They're unfastening our country's belt and preparing to drop our nation's drawers as al-Qaeda prepares to turn around and give us a thrashing! Burying our heads in the sand will NOT make this problem go away, so do us all a favor, politicians, and deal with reality AS IT IS, not AS YOU WANT IT.
Critics are charging that it shouldn't have been raised because part of the information is 3-4 years old. Some people are ignoring the fact that there is direct evidence that 9/11 was at least four years in the making.
If that's true, then what is all this noise about? If we had discovered plans (on September 10th) that dated back to 1996 that laid out the attack on the World Trade Center, complete with plans to ram hijacked airliners into both towers, would we have done nothing? WHOOPS!! That's exactly what happened last time!
This is election-year politics, AGAIN!
Why do idiot politicians put election year POLITICS ahead of preventing the terrorists from carrying out attacks on specific targets?
They're unfastening our country's belt and preparing to drop our nation's drawers as al-Qaeda prepares to turn around and give us a thrashing! Burying our heads in the sand will NOT make this problem go away, so do us all a favor, politicians, and deal with reality AS IT IS, not AS YOU WANT IT.
Friday, August 06, 2004
School of the Americas, School of Shame
I’ve been following the saga of the School of the Americas for the last four years or so and have come to some conclusions about this “school.”
It either needs to be closed down, or totally transformed, and the U.S. government needs to take responsibility for what the school has helped to bring about in Latin America.
This is not good.
To give you some background, the school is located at a U.S. military base in Fort Benning, Georgia, and was started in 1946 to professionalize Latin American and Caribbean armies. In 1963, the school was renamed as the “School of the Americas” by President Kennedy’s administration and the new focus was on resisting communist aggression in central and south America as well as in the Caribbean. Their new Cold War mission was to train anti-communist Latin American army units in the arts of counter-insurgency, infantry tactics, military intelligence, counter-narcotics operations, and commando operations.
It became a goal of the United States government to keep neutral and friendly countries from falling under the USSR’s influence and so the school’s mission changed to accomplish that goal. The results were much different than what was intended.
Instead of helping preserve democracy and freedom, SOA graduates led military coups and were responsible for massacres of hundreds of people. Among the SOA's nearly 60,000 graduates were notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, and Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador. SOA graduates were responsible for the Uraba massacre in Colombia, the El Mozote massacre of 900 civilians in El Salvador, the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, and the Jesuit massacre in El Salvador, the La Cantuta massacre in Peru, the torture and murder of a UN worker in Chile, and hundreds of other human rights abuses over the years.
In 1996, the U.S. government released seven Spanish-edition manuals to the media and the true horror of what our military was teaching to the participants became known. The techniques in the manual included instruction in interrogation techniques like torture, execution, blackmail and arresting the relatives of those being questioned. This is wrong.
The system turns out professional terrorists and kidnappers, not professional soldiers! This was not intended, but the system was not changed when the results of the training became known. So the U.S. government has some work to do.
It’s time to change the SOA into a military police academy, or a training center for the new Iraqi army, or SOMETHING other than what it is currently being used for. If the cause of freedom and democracy are not being advanced, then it’s no good.
Most Americans have developed a natural hatred of terrorists, so why, then, are we producing them? It makes no sense!
It either needs to be closed down, or totally transformed, and the U.S. government needs to take responsibility for what the school has helped to bring about in Latin America.
This is not good.
To give you some background, the school is located at a U.S. military base in Fort Benning, Georgia, and was started in 1946 to professionalize Latin American and Caribbean armies. In 1963, the school was renamed as the “School of the Americas” by President Kennedy’s administration and the new focus was on resisting communist aggression in central and south America as well as in the Caribbean. Their new Cold War mission was to train anti-communist Latin American army units in the arts of counter-insurgency, infantry tactics, military intelligence, counter-narcotics operations, and commando operations.
It became a goal of the United States government to keep neutral and friendly countries from falling under the USSR’s influence and so the school’s mission changed to accomplish that goal. The results were much different than what was intended.
Instead of helping preserve democracy and freedom, SOA graduates led military coups and were responsible for massacres of hundreds of people. Among the SOA's nearly 60,000 graduates were notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, and Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador. SOA graduates were responsible for the Uraba massacre in Colombia, the El Mozote massacre of 900 civilians in El Salvador, the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, and the Jesuit massacre in El Salvador, the La Cantuta massacre in Peru, the torture and murder of a UN worker in Chile, and hundreds of other human rights abuses over the years.
In 1996, the U.S. government released seven Spanish-edition manuals to the media and the true horror of what our military was teaching to the participants became known. The techniques in the manual included instruction in interrogation techniques like torture, execution, blackmail and arresting the relatives of those being questioned. This is wrong.
The system turns out professional terrorists and kidnappers, not professional soldiers! This was not intended, but the system was not changed when the results of the training became known. So the U.S. government has some work to do.
It’s time to change the SOA into a military police academy, or a training center for the new Iraqi army, or SOMETHING other than what it is currently being used for. If the cause of freedom and democracy are not being advanced, then it’s no good.
Most Americans have developed a natural hatred of terrorists, so why, then, are we producing them? It makes no sense!
Scientist Thinks Ireland is Lost Island of Atlantis
A scientist from Sweden has put forth an unusual theory about where Atlantis is:
It's just off the coast of England, and is now called Ireland.
I don't know if this theory will hold up in the scientific community, but it's a facinating idea for discussion and for works of science-fiction.
According to myth, Atlantis was an advanced civilization that existed some 11,000+ years ago, and was destroyed by some kind of natural disaster that caused the entire island to sink beneath the surface of the ocean.
Many movies have been made about Atlantis being discovered on the bottom of the Atlantic, and many researchers have set out to discover the location of Atlantis. Predictibly, all efforts have failed.
This theory may be laughed at, but I think someone will write some great works of fiction about this idea!
What do I think? I don't know if I buy into the scientific part of the theory, but if it's proven to be true, it could change some parts of western history. That hasn't happened in quite some time. What a cool theory!
What do you think?
It's just off the coast of England, and is now called Ireland.
I don't know if this theory will hold up in the scientific community, but it's a facinating idea for discussion and for works of science-fiction.
According to myth, Atlantis was an advanced civilization that existed some 11,000+ years ago, and was destroyed by some kind of natural disaster that caused the entire island to sink beneath the surface of the ocean.
Many movies have been made about Atlantis being discovered on the bottom of the Atlantic, and many researchers have set out to discover the location of Atlantis. Predictibly, all efforts have failed.
This theory may be laughed at, but I think someone will write some great works of fiction about this idea!
What do I think? I don't know if I buy into the scientific part of the theory, but if it's proven to be true, it could change some parts of western history. That hasn't happened in quite some time. What a cool theory!
What do you think?
Abu Ghraib Hearing Day 2
During the U.S. Army Abu Ghraib Prison scandal hearing today, government witnesses revealed that others were complicit in the sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners and have escaped prosecution so far. The list includes officers, civilians, CIA operatives, security contractors and military intelligence officials.
What is the United States government doing to do about that? They need to arrest some people and put them on the stand too.
Others testified that they saw what was happening to the Iraqis and did nothing (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128233,00.html). One soldier testified that he didn’t report anything, including the “human pyramid” because he thought “someone was in charge.” So what? Just because someone’s “in charge” makes it right?
The following statement is from the “Soldier’s Manual of Common Tasks” (Skill Levels 2 - 4 STP 21-24-SMCT August 2003) and it reads: You are a soldier in the U.S. Army. As a soldier, you are responsible for identifying, understanding, and complying with the provisions of the Law of War, including the Geneva and Hague conventions. You are also responsible for identifying and notifying the appropriate authorities of any suspected or known violations of the Law of War. The appropriate authorities, including your chain of command, must enforce the provisions of the Law of War, including the Geneva and Hague conventions.
This is required reading for every U.S. Army soldier, whether it is for an infantryman, or a cook behind the lines, or a water treatment specialist, or a military policeman, or a prison guard.
This is from FM 27-10, the official U.S. Army Field Manual for conduct during wartime:
93. Questioning of Prisoners
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this equivalent information.
If he willfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand. (GPW, art. 17.)
----------
So, not only were the Geneva and Hague conventions violated, but these soldiers also violated standing Army procedures for questioning and treatment of prisoners.
As for the others, the authorities need to make a complete list and charge them with violations of the Geneva & Hague Conventions respectively, if U.S. Army policy doesn’t apply to them.
It should also be pointed out that this sex abuse scandal was to punish the prisoners in that particular section for killing one of their own who was cooperating with the U.S., not to "soften them up" for interrogators. Several of the accused have already said this.
What is the United States government doing to do about that? They need to arrest some people and put them on the stand too.
Others testified that they saw what was happening to the Iraqis and did nothing (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128233,00.html). One soldier testified that he didn’t report anything, including the “human pyramid” because he thought “someone was in charge.” So what? Just because someone’s “in charge” makes it right?
The following statement is from the “Soldier’s Manual of Common Tasks” (Skill Levels 2 - 4 STP 21-24-SMCT August 2003) and it reads: You are a soldier in the U.S. Army. As a soldier, you are responsible for identifying, understanding, and complying with the provisions of the Law of War, including the Geneva and Hague conventions. You are also responsible for identifying and notifying the appropriate authorities of any suspected or known violations of the Law of War. The appropriate authorities, including your chain of command, must enforce the provisions of the Law of War, including the Geneva and Hague conventions.
This is required reading for every U.S. Army soldier, whether it is for an infantryman, or a cook behind the lines, or a water treatment specialist, or a military policeman, or a prison guard.
This is from FM 27-10, the official U.S. Army Field Manual for conduct during wartime:
93. Questioning of Prisoners
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this equivalent information.
If he willfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand. (GPW, art. 17.)
----------
So, not only were the Geneva and Hague conventions violated, but these soldiers also violated standing Army procedures for questioning and treatment of prisoners.
As for the others, the authorities need to make a complete list and charge them with violations of the Geneva & Hague Conventions respectively, if U.S. Army policy doesn’t apply to them.
It should also be pointed out that this sex abuse scandal was to punish the prisoners in that particular section for killing one of their own who was cooperating with the U.S., not to "soften them up" for interrogators. Several of the accused have already said this.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Soldier on Trial
The pre-trial of one of seven soldiers accused of abusing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad has gotten underway.
The female soldier is accused of thirteen counts of abusing detainees and six counts stemming from possession of sexually explicit photos, which are prohibited by U.S. Army policy.
I said so before and I’ll say it again: do some of our people not know the difference between a right and wrong? Is it now acceptable behavior to force unwilling participants into committing homosexual acts on one another? Or any sexual act for that matter?
It doesn’t matter if the soldiers were ordered to do it, they had a right and a moral obligation to say “NO!” and to speak out, as one brave soldier finally did, which brought about an end to the torture.
The accused soldier may not have done what she is accused of, but she failed to say “NO!” The Army doesn’t want officers and soldiers that blindly follow orders that violate their conscience. “I was only following orders” is a pathetic excuse used by many around the world to justify war crimes, as this is.
The soldier faces up to thirty-eight years in prison if she is convicted. I have very little sympathy for a soldier that disobeys her orders, goes into a part of the prison that she has no business being in, gets caught in the sack with her boyfriend by her superiors, is counseled four times in six months for not doing her job or violating regulations, gets caught up in the scandal, and comes home pregnant. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing their j-o-b-s properly WITHOUT violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but these seven couldn’t?
Here’s the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128095,00.html
So in the end, it doesn’t matter if they were ordered to commit these atrocities or not. They had the moral obligation to say “NO!” but they didn’t do it. They are guilty of violating moral decency and human respect. The criminals they are in charge of have basic human rights as well, even though many of them are scum and are as guilty as sin. The criminals ought to be tried under the rule of law, NOT by the law of the jungle!
If the soldiers were ordered to do it, then those responsible should be in the dock as well to face trial.
Let justice be done and the laws of the United States be vigorously enforced.
The female soldier is accused of thirteen counts of abusing detainees and six counts stemming from possession of sexually explicit photos, which are prohibited by U.S. Army policy.
I said so before and I’ll say it again: do some of our people not know the difference between a right and wrong? Is it now acceptable behavior to force unwilling participants into committing homosexual acts on one another? Or any sexual act for that matter?
It doesn’t matter if the soldiers were ordered to do it, they had a right and a moral obligation to say “NO!” and to speak out, as one brave soldier finally did, which brought about an end to the torture.
The accused soldier may not have done what she is accused of, but she failed to say “NO!” The Army doesn’t want officers and soldiers that blindly follow orders that violate their conscience. “I was only following orders” is a pathetic excuse used by many around the world to justify war crimes, as this is.
The soldier faces up to thirty-eight years in prison if she is convicted. I have very little sympathy for a soldier that disobeys her orders, goes into a part of the prison that she has no business being in, gets caught in the sack with her boyfriend by her superiors, is counseled four times in six months for not doing her job or violating regulations, gets caught up in the scandal, and comes home pregnant. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing their j-o-b-s properly WITHOUT violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but these seven couldn’t?
Here’s the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128095,00.html
So in the end, it doesn’t matter if they were ordered to commit these atrocities or not. They had the moral obligation to say “NO!” but they didn’t do it. They are guilty of violating moral decency and human respect. The criminals they are in charge of have basic human rights as well, even though many of them are scum and are as guilty as sin. The criminals ought to be tried under the rule of law, NOT by the law of the jungle!
If the soldiers were ordered to do it, then those responsible should be in the dock as well to face trial.
Let justice be done and the laws of the United States be vigorously enforced.
Clarification on a Previous Post
A clarification on a previous post:
Whenever I mentioned Howard Dean's name in the post, I inserted the infamous "Dean Scream". That's not me screaming about Dean, that's me reminding everyone of why he's not the Democratic candidate.
There were some questions about that. That's the deal with it.
Whenever I mentioned Howard Dean's name in the post, I inserted the infamous "Dean Scream". That's not me screaming about Dean, that's me reminding everyone of why he's not the Democratic candidate.
There were some questions about that. That's the deal with it.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Heinz-Kerry and "Shove It" In The News Again
OK, now this is really getting ridiculous!
Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s telling a reporter to “shove it” has been the subject of some 381 stories in publications around the country since July 25th when the incident happened.
In contrast, Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign mottos did not catch. According to Factiva, "One America" got 57 mentions, "Hope is on the way," got 50 mentions and "America can do better" just 21 in the same time period.
What is this press fascination with the words “shove it”? Is the ENTIRE presidential election to be based on Billionaire Teresa’s rudeness to a reporter?
This is the dumbest continuing story that I have EVER seen. The Washington Times is reporting that the reporter who had the argument with Heinz-Kerry (and I don’t care if she uses hyphens in her name or not either) has been the subject of death threats and obscene messages (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040803-121322-5779r.htm). How childish. Sounds like some people still need to grow up.
I have nothing but contempt for people who think other people deserve to die for exercising their First Amendment rights.
Kerry's campaign is in REAL trouble: the press is more interested in what his wife is saying than what he is. The numbers prove it.
Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s telling a reporter to “shove it” has been the subject of some 381 stories in publications around the country since July 25th when the incident happened.
In contrast, Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign mottos did not catch. According to Factiva, "One America" got 57 mentions, "Hope is on the way," got 50 mentions and "America can do better" just 21 in the same time period.
What is this press fascination with the words “shove it”? Is the ENTIRE presidential election to be based on Billionaire Teresa’s rudeness to a reporter?
This is the dumbest continuing story that I have EVER seen. The Washington Times is reporting that the reporter who had the argument with Heinz-Kerry (and I don’t care if she uses hyphens in her name or not either) has been the subject of death threats and obscene messages (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040803-121322-5779r.htm). How childish. Sounds like some people still need to grow up.
I have nothing but contempt for people who think other people deserve to die for exercising their First Amendment rights.
Kerry's campaign is in REAL trouble: the press is more interested in what his wife is saying than what he is. The numbers prove it.
Dean & Terror
Was out in the woods for the last four days and so completely ignored the news.
Heard that Howard Dean (yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!) accused Bush of changing the subject to terrorism whenever “he gets into trouble” on the domestic side of things. That’s not how the system works.
The Director of Homeland Security and other intelligence agencies brief the President daily on terrorist threat detection and make recommendations based on the latest intelligence that is gleaned from interrogations of terrorist prisoners (both “in-custody” or “newly captured” al-Qaeda/Hamas/Ansar al-Islam/other agents).
The President then makes a decision about the terror alert posture based on that daily information, regardless of timing.
One important note: Bush/Cheney are getting briefings and so is Kerry/Edwards. They are qualified to make statements about current threats and the threat detection posture of the nation. Dean (yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!) is NOT getting briefings and is making assertions based on his interpretations of the NEWS, which is not told everything either.
Dean (yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!) the cowboy is the one turning this into a political issue. In an election year, all actions are deemed political, regardless of who does what and when and I’m a little surprised that Dean (you get the idea) would do that too. Dean (uh huh) is going to really look like an idiot if something happens in the next few weeks with the Republican National Convention kicking off in New York and the 9/11 anniversary approaching not long after that.
Now is not the time for partisan politics over terror.
Heard that Howard Dean (yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!) accused Bush of changing the subject to terrorism whenever “he gets into trouble” on the domestic side of things. That’s not how the system works.
The Director of Homeland Security and other intelligence agencies brief the President daily on terrorist threat detection and make recommendations based on the latest intelligence that is gleaned from interrogations of terrorist prisoners (both “in-custody” or “newly captured” al-Qaeda/Hamas/Ansar al-Islam/other agents).
The President then makes a decision about the terror alert posture based on that daily information, regardless of timing.
One important note: Bush/Cheney are getting briefings and so is Kerry/Edwards. They are qualified to make statements about current threats and the threat detection posture of the nation. Dean (yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!) is NOT getting briefings and is making assertions based on his interpretations of the NEWS, which is not told everything either.
Dean (yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!) the cowboy is the one turning this into a political issue. In an election year, all actions are deemed political, regardless of who does what and when and I’m a little surprised that Dean (you get the idea) would do that too. Dean (uh huh) is going to really look like an idiot if something happens in the next few weeks with the Republican National Convention kicking off in New York and the 9/11 anniversary approaching not long after that.
Now is not the time for partisan politics over terror.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)